Have the cooking-show people run out of ideas?

[runwestierun]

The thing that is sad to me is the dumbing down of food TV. Every year it is aimed at a dumber and dumber audience. That is what has me peeing in my pants with anticipation about Nathan Myhrvold's book "Modernist Cuisine". I can read it and I know I won't feel like I'm eavesdropping on someone's conversation with a toddler, which is how I feel when I watch shows like United Tastes of America with Jeffrey Saad on the Cooking Channel. I just can't handle the constant over-the-top attempts at transfer of enthusiasm about hamburgers, hot dogs, pizza. Some call them chef-nymphs but to me they are more toddler-cheerleaders.

[Toliver]

I can't remember who it was that said it originally. It seems that people want to watch food shows as entertainment instead of a combination of education and entertainment. For example, Julia is instructive but she's not the first thing that comes to mind when you're trying to increase ratings.

A little sad, really.

I think Sara Moulton said something to this effect when she explained why she and FoodTV were parting ways. She saw the writing on the wall and it just wasn't for her.

I agree. Quite sad.

[OliverB]

it's really gotten bad, nothing but dumb "competitions", gross food (from greasy 5lb burgers to worms) and kindergarten like "instructions". It's really sad, years ago I watched a lot of the food channel, just had it running as background noise, can't do that anymore. Nothing but oafish guys with teenager hairdos and one or two pretty ladies falling out of their dress. Not that I mind the later but I'd prefer that on some other show. But just look at the other channels, nothing but dumb garbage, "reality" shows that have nothing to do with reality, game shows and crime crime crime. And knock offs of said crime shows.

There are some good ones here and there, but considering how many channels I have, there's really not much worth watching. But the masses seem to eat it up! But not surprising, fast food for the little couch potato brains. I've often been close to pulling the plug on cable, and think in a year or two I will, there will be enough online content where I can pick and choose what I want to see when I want to see it, cable as we know it won't be around much longer I believe. And I can't say I'm sad about that.

[Mottmott]

To avoid rant, pass this by.

All the complaints about FN shows duly noted, but I don't even try to watch those. What disturbs me is what's happening on PBS cooking shows. First of all, our local area (Philadelphia/NJ) which has 2 PBS stations, seems to be limiting it's cast of characters and playing endless repeats of the same programs. And the trend seems to tilt towards shows that are half travelog and half cooking: Lidia", English, Ripert, Jose Andres. It is particularly annoying when talented chefs are spending more time with their travels than in their studio-kitchens. I confess that I do find Keller and Andres worth watching when they finally get into the kitchen. What a waste. Fortunately there are exceptions, but I wonder how long Hubert Keller and reruns of Julia cooking with chefs and bakers are likely to continue.

I long for more dry, "here's how you do it" sorts of presentation. I'm sooo bored with chefs who think we need to watch them travel and eat for us. Even the programs that do have some substance are tainted. Their "personalities," verbal ticks, and personal lives are way outside my sphere of interest. And spare me the semi-pornographic animal farm noises that Chris Kimball and his chef sidekicks feel compelled to make after each "the best I ever ate." Am I apostate for feeling annoyed by all the family schtick, travel-time, and pornographic groaning? These formulae have a viral quality. Even programs by those who haven't the same star quality, but who produce shows full of useful information are being tainted. Someone, for example, like Marianne Esposito who has always been something of a food anthropologist of Italian cooking (long before Lidia began her show, I believe) has been tainted by this and has taken to traveloging and other gimmicks instead of just doing what she does best.

One last grumble: here in Philadelphia, the supposedly no-commercials station is full of commercials, averaging at least 5-8 minutes between those built into the shows and those the studio adds. Indeed, I think some of the travelling originates in the public relations/advertising of Italy, Spain, Norway, etc.

[Dakki]

Thread necromancy!

That reminds me, someone here said earlier we didn't have any good science shows because nobody could replace Carl Sagan. I give you

Keep in mind he's delivering a lecture in an auditorium, with some slides and a video camera probably handled by a grad student. Give him a competent producer and a reasonable budget and he could make a billion heads explode.

Unfortunately no station is going to give him a producer and a budget - they need the money and the airtime for proven formulas like "police officers who are partners of opposite genders and are attracted to each other solve bizarre murders" and "cheerful young female makes noodle salad."

[gfweb]

I recently stumbled on a decent one on the cooking channel. A Canadian thing called French Cooking at Home. The cook is Laura somebody and she teaches a bit. Not bad to look at but not a tart or a trollop either. She seems intelligent and reminds me of Julia a little.

Edited May 17, 2011 by gfweb (log)

[OliverB]

LOL, I bet a show called "Hot Girls, Hot Pants, Hot Pasta"or "Pasta Gone Wild" would do very well out there in TV zombie land! Maybe finish each show with a bikini food fight?

[GlorifiedRice]

They need to hire YOUTUBE chefs like CookingWithDog and Maangchi

[Pierogi]

I recently stumbled on a decent one on the cooking channel. A Canadian thing called French Cooking at Home. The cook is Laura somebody and she teaches a bit. Not bad to look at but not a tart or a trollop either. She seems intelligent and reminds me of Julia a little.

I LOVE her and that show. Laura Calder is her name, and she rocks. Her show, the reruns of La Julia and "Chuck's Day Off" are about the only shows I watch on either FN or Cooking Channel any longer.

Given that her show doesn't suck, I don't expect it to be around much longer. Especially if she doesn't learn to say "BAAAAAAM" or "YUMMMMMM-OH" or "MONEY".

[ScoopKW]

Thread necromancy!

That reminds me, someone here said earlier we didn't have any good science shows because nobody could replace Carl Sagan. I give you

Keep in mind he's delivering a lecture in an auditorium, with some slides and a video camera probably handled by a grad student. Give him a competent producer and a reasonable budget and he could make a billion heads explode.

Krauss is smashing. But his speech is rapid-fire, yet halting. He talks about a mile-a-minute, but pauses a lot...which can be....distracting....especially if he doesn't....have an excellent film editor. But we already have Dr. Tyson -- and not only can the man explain astrophysics in laymans terms, I would happily sit and listen to him read from a telephone directory. (And he has hosted new Nova shows on PBS -- WAAAAAYYYY more geared for children than the original Nova. But still, it's new science content.)

PS -- I didn't say we don't have any good science shows. I said we don't have a Physics channel on cable television because of a lack of good hosts. And I still say the world has produced exactly two people who could host a astrophysics show. Lots of people have the science chops -- but they're not telegenic. A rare breed indeed who can do both.

Google "Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson Titanic" and you'll find a great bit about his frustration trying to correct Hollywood inaccuracies.

EDIT -- typos...

Edited May 17, 2011 by ScoopKW (log)

[gfweb]

I recently stumbled on a decent one on the cooking channel. A Canadian thing called French Cooking at Home. The cook is Laura somebody and she teaches a bit. Not bad to look at but not a tart or a trollop either. She seems intelligent and reminds me of Julia a little.

I LOVE her and that show. Laura Calder is her name, and she rocks. Her show, the reruns of La Julia and "Chuck's Day Off" are about the only shows I watch on either FN or Cooking Channel any longer.

Given that her show doesn't suck, I don't expect it to be around much longer. Especially if she doesn't learn to say "BAAAAAAM" or "YUMMMMMM-OH" or "MONEY".

Sounds like I need to check out Chuck. Thanks.

[Dakki]

Thread necromancy!

That reminds me, someone here said earlier we didn't have any good science shows because nobody could replace Carl Sagan. I give you

Krauss is smashing. But his speech is rapid-fire, yet halting. He talks about a mile-a-minute, but pauses a lot...which can be....distracting....especially if he doesn't....have an excellent film editor. But we already have Dr. Tyson -- and not only can the man explain astrophysics in laymans terms, I would happily sit and listen to him read from a telephone directory. (And he has hosted new Nova shows on PBS -- WAAAAAYYYY more geared for children than the original Nova. But still, it's new science content.)

PS -- I didn't say we don't have any good science shows. I said we don't have a Physics channel on cable television because of a lack of good hosts. And I still say the world has produced exactly two people who could host a astrophysics show. Lots of people have the science chops -- but they're not telegenic. A rare breed indeed who can do both.

Google "Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson Titanic" and you'll find a great bit about his frustration trying to correct Hollywood inaccuracies.

EDIT -- typos...

My bad, I misremembered the conversation. Now I think it was on another thread, even. Oh well.

I don't think being telegenic (at least as I understand the term) is necessary for a science show host, just being interesting and comprehensible. I mean, we want them to explain why they think the universe is thirteen billion and change years old, not seduce a starlet onscreen.

I think it's very hard for a specialist to talk about his area of expertise and remain engaging, in general. I've been known to put a roomful of colicky babies to sleep talking about heat treatments, for instance. In this sense at least I think Krauss is excellent.

Anyway, my whole point w/r/t the topic was that TV programmers (from what I see) are all going after a slice of the big, proven audiences using formulas that are known to work, rather than developing a new audience. In cooking shows this means we get charming, telegenic (again, in the sense I understand the term) hosts doing things that other such hosts are doing on other shows (traipsing around exotic locations, cussing out incompetent sous chefs, eating a 2 kg piece of steak, making bland meals for four in under 45 minutes, etc), rather than, say, demonstrating the court cuisine of the Byzantine empire.

And that's why food television is so boring nowadays.

[ScoopKW]

I don't think being telegenic (at least as I understand the term) is necessary for a science show host, just being interesting and comprehensible. I mean, we want them to explain why they think the universe is thirteen billion and change years old, not seduce a starlet onscreen.

Then we have different definitions of "telegenic." I think Alton Brown and the geeks from Mythbusters are very telegenic. Yet none of them are going to be seducing starlets anytime soon. (Well, maybe Jamie Hyneman -- if she like that "rugged" look.)

Julia Child is another one. She wasn't physically beautiful. Her speech was a little grating. And yet she's probably the most telegenic person ever to appear on TV. (Well, her or David Attanborough. It's a toss-up.)

Going back to cooking, Hubert Keller is probably the best of the instructional chefs. He certainly has the chops. But my wife and I keep a running score of how many times he says "nice" and "really" in an episode. As in, "You need a nice piece of really fresh pork, and then cook it on really high heat so it's nice and seared and really delicious."

I won't even watch Lidia Bastianich anymore. Her show has devolved into video postcards of Lidia traveling around Italy with her rich friends. I don't want to spend an hour watching her EAT.

Anne Burrell has the most promise. She can lose the Louis Armstrong voice impressions in my opinion, but she actually cooks. And a viewer could TiVo the show, assemble the ingredients and follow along. The end result would be a nice dinner. That's really all I ask out of a cooking show.

PS -- You bet I'd watch "Foams with Ferran." I also wish TK would do an instructional series, where he not only explains how. But also WHY he does what he does. Sure, I've read all his books. But it would be instructional to see his technique on video.

[Toliver]

And spare me the semi-pornographic animal farm noises that Chris Kimball and his chef sidekicks feel compelled to make after each "the best I ever ate."

To be fair, Graham Kerr was the first to make such noises decades ago on his "The Galloping Gourmet" cooking show.

Regarding the food-travelogue shows, while I can understand how such shows could annoy you, I also think it can go hand in hand with the terroir aspect of cooking. By Lidia taking us to a farm in southern Italy, perhaps she's showing us how the dish evolved and why it uses the ingredients it does. Sure, it takes away from valuable cooking time, but I'm still learning something about food and cooking.

It's funny how "Molto Mario" achieved almost the same thing as Lydia but without the travelogue. On that show Mario, while he cooked, would talk about the mythic Italian housewife and her knife skills and the ingredients she would use depending on where she lived, and so on, all without leaving his cooking set. You still learned something about the recipe's origin while he cooked.

Perhaps the change can be attributed to cooking shows having bigger budgets these days.